UPJOHN'S DRUG XANAX ON TRIAL

Bradley Yearwood bny at crl3.crl.com
Wed Mar 25 15:08:39 EST 1998


In article <6f7m8a$1bo at dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Steven B. Harris <sbharris at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <6f4q4q$2dk at crl3.crl.com> bny at crl3.crl.com (Bradley Yearwood)
>writes: 

I see and agree with your point.  I do feel that there is a place for
lawsuits, because there is some small incidence of true malpractice
(both clinical and in drug manufacture: contamination or wrong concentration).

There is also a place for sensible judgment.  Sensible judgment cannot occur
when so many factors conspire against it.  The public remains scientifically
and medically ignorant.  There is a general abdication of personal
responsibility.  The noble ideal of rooting for the underdog has been
subverted and perverted.  The risk of adverse consequences for a cynically
bad plaintiff is near zero.  Add lawyers and agitate.  Presto!  Bonanza-
mindset litigation.

Then the criminal justice industry gets their hungry and vicious talons into
the process, and you have a whole new mess.

>    ... But the tests for thyroid are much more straight forward. 
>And the people don't sue you if their body chemisties don't agree with
>what you and they decide would be a good experimental regime.   And
>they shouldn't be able to with Xanax, either (or at least not easily,
>or sucessfully).  It's time people grew up.

Agreed.  If one is to demand absolutely certain and guaranteed results in
medicine, there is only one choice of doctor: Kevorkian.

Brad Yearwood
Cotati, CA



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list